One of the arguments I’ve heard recently is that someone is placed in more danger by a law abiding citizen having a concealed handgun. This line of reasoning is out of a position of ignorance of modern firearms and the built-in safeties they employ.

One of the arguments goes along the lines of “if the gun slips out of the holster, then it could go off when it falls.” While it is conceivable that a pistol could “go off” on being dropped, it is extremely unlikely. Modern firearms have a “drop safety” that is specifically designed to prevent the gun from being able to be fired unless the center of the trigger is pulled back before the outside edges. If the gun is just dropped, the impact, even if the gun falls so the trigger is “up”, would have both parts attempting to drive back at the same time. The drop safety will not allow that to happen (and a 5 lbs. pull would also tend to prevent the trigger from having enough kinetic energy to overcome the trigger pull).

There are others that think a handgun could “just go off” sitting in the holster. While that might happen if the person was manipulating the gun (or he was being burned alive) guns do not “just go off”.

So then, “random” firing is not going to happen.

What about an enraged fight going to the point of drawing a pistol?

Not very likely either. Of the times when I’ve heard of someone shooting someone else after a fight at a bar, the vast majority of the times it was after the shooter left, and brought back the gun. I don’t know, but it seems like those that are hot headed enough will not have the right to carry a concealed firearm (they will have broken the law before and lost the right.)

So why do I say it isn’t just a negative, but a positive? First, if I’m out without a firearm, and someone walks into the business with which I am dealing and brandishes a weapon, I would certainly appreciate a law abiding citizen with a firearm stopping the criminal. If there were only seconds until the person would start shooting, then it would certainly be in my interest to have people *right* *there* to defend me (or at least drive off the criminal in their own defense).

So please, if you are a law abiding, able bodied, mentally competent citizen, obtain training, a concealed carry permit, and start carrying. It will make us all safer if you do.

Comments

Written by G. Stone about 10 years ago.

Brian:

This is a very interesting subject. The use of firearms for protection of persons or property varies greatly from state to state. It is imperative that someone know the law as it pertains to the use of a firearm in their state or jurisdiction. We are lucky in Virginia in that we have the Dillon Rule. This law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws or ordinances that trump the state statute.

In Virginia the law is fairly defined as to when you can and can’t use a firearm. For instance, the law treats me differently if I am out in public and I defend myself or a family member as opposed to a perfect stranger against a real treat. Our protection under the law diminishes when we take action with a firearm against treats in the protection of self or family. The risk from criminal prosecution and civil liability grows when acting in defense of the public.

If I am standing ( armed ) in line at the bank and a bad guy pulls out a gun and proceeds to rob the bank the law does not allow me to take him out based on my desire to thwart the robbery. However, if said same robber decides to execute a teller, I can then take him out based on my fear that I might be next. Self preservation is a priority in more ways than
one.

NRA’s Cam Cameron was making the point last night on the radio. Since the mid 1980′s shall issue states are now up to 40 or so. The crime rates in those specific states have decreased. Specifically crimes such as armed robbery. Crimes where the perceived victim was now able to provide for their own immediate defense. This in large part due to the fact that citizens in those states are no longer required by the state to be victims. Criminals although not rockets scientists are not stupid. They will take the easy way. The easy way is to migrate to environs that still force its citizens to remain unarmed.

“So please, if you are a law abiding, able bodied, mentally competent citizen, obtain training, a concealed carry permit, and start carrying. It will make us all safer if you do.”

Amen brother.

An Armed Society is a polite society.

Written by G. Stone about 10 years ago.

Edit

Opps

Our protection under the law differs when we take action with a firearm against treats in the protection of self or family. The risk from criminal prosecution and civil liability grows when acting in defense of the public.

Written by dans about 10 years ago.

Brian, Please allow me to add a few other points -

Many holsters are designed with retention in mind. The simplest is the thumb break holster which employs a strap which secures the pistol. This assists in the prevention of accidental drops, and also hinders another’s access to your sidearm. The second type, is a detent which is molded into the holster that catches the edge of the trigger guard. Not only does this help to prevent drops, it also prevents someone from pulling your pistol out of the holster.

Also in use today are passive safety mechanisms. An active safety mechanism is one that requires a conscious act of switching on and off. A passive safety is disengaged when you prepare to fire the pistol. There are two types of passive safeties in use today, the trigger safety as used by Glock and Springfield, and a grip safety used by Springfield and other 1911 makers. The trigger safety is disengaged when you put your finger on the trigger. The grip safety is disengaged by your hand gripping the pistol.

As Brian points out, modern firearms are designed to only go bang when you want them to, not when they are dropped. It is for this very reason that if you do ever drop a loaded modern pistol, let it fall. Most accidents with a dropped pistol occur when a pistol with a disengaged active safety is dropped, and the shooter grasps for it and catches the trigger.

We must also not assume that all carry a handgun with a round in the chamber as there are a great many who do not. As an example I do not with a striker fired pistol, as I store and carry the gun with the striker spring relaxed.

Written by dans about 10 years ago.

“If I am standing ( armed ) in line at the bank and a bad guy pulls out a gun and proceeds to rob the bank the law does not allow me to take him out based on my desire to thwart the robbery. However, if said same robber decides to execute a teller, I can then take him out based on my fear that I might be next. ”

G, if the bad guy has the ability, and has indicated an intent to execute or cause bodily injury to a third party, I believe you may respond with deadly force in Virginia.

This also poses a moral dilemma for those that are able to defend themselves or others. You are out somewhere, you see SPMM walking on the sidewalk 20 feet in front of you. Someone walks up to SPMM, pulls a gun, looks at SPMM and shouts ‘I’m going to shoot you because I don’t like your looks’.

What do you do ? Do you act and accept the risk of personal injury, death, or legal or civil action against you protecting someone who has made a conscious decision against providing for his own defense ?

Why is this germane ? Because our police may be faced with this decision on any given day.

Written by G. Stone about 10 years ago.

“Why is this germane ? Because our police may be faced with this decision on any given day.”

This is an issue of liability. The police have the government fed , state or local as a backstop. We as private citizens do not. When I took my CC class we reviewed the differences in great detail.

“This also poses a moral dilemma for those that are able to defend themselves or others. You are out somewhere, you see SPMM walking on the sidewalk 20 feet in front of you. Someone walks up to SPMM, pulls a gun, looks at SPMM and shouts ‘I’m going to shoot you because I don’t like your looks’.”

In this scenario SPMM will be re-thinking his foolish opposition to guns. I am under no obligation to come to his rescue. The state clearly says “I” must fear for my safety or a member of my family. What the state is saying is SPMM is shit of of luck.

The realty is prosecutors have wide discretion regarding these situations. The history or record of a state or jurisdiction as to how an informed actor might respond plays a big role.
If I am in Virginia, Texas or Florida I am more apt to come to the aid of SPMM via preemptive action. If I am in California, New York or Maryland, unfortunately SPMM will have to become a statistic before I take double tap the bad guy. Now if the victim is SPMM some will view the scenario as a Karma induced tragedy.

Somebody needs to aqaint himself with the “use of deadly force” as a defense. If a bad guy pulls out a gun, or anything that CLEARLY looks like a gun, and points it at another person ANYWHERE, the average citizen can rightfully assume that the life of the person in the sights is in danger. At that point, under deadly force directives, you can readily drop them like a stone.

Written by G.Stone about 10 years ago.

“Somebody needs to aqaint himself with the “use of deadly force” as a defense. If a bad guy pulls out a gun, or anything that CLEARLY looks like a gun, and points it at another person ANYWHERE, the average citizen can rightfully assume that the life of the person in the sights is in danger. At that point, under deadly force directives, you can readily drop them like a stone.”

BM

Somtimes more often than not rational concepts and the law of the commonwealth pass each other like ships in the night.

Written by dans about 10 years ago.

Now that some here have tried to convince us that we have no need to carry a defensive weapon :

The print version of this story also talked about how restaurant patrons came and went, walking past the shot man.

Guess Charm City should be called Harm City ?

Written by ACTivist about 10 years ago.

Carrying open or concealed if your state allows is always looked upon as a deterent in the eyes of the criminal element. These same criminals also know that a great majority of those who carry will hesitate if even able to pull the trigger on an aggressor. Most of the time they are just unwilling to gamble for fear of picking on the citizen who WILL pull the trigger. As it goes, “never draw a gun unless you mean to use it” and, personnally, don’t carry a gun if you won’t use it. It just puts another gun on the streets after you become a victim.

The scary thing about the video in #9 is that the guy, even if armed, would likely have been a victim unless he was *real* good at firearms disarm and retain. The gun at his head would actually have been a good thing, until the second guy came in. I’m not sure these was anything that could have been done in that case, unless someone else shot the perps.

Of course that is the whole point of this thread. The only way to be sure those guys would have been stopped is for someone else to have taken a head shot on the criminals. Frankly, that is not something I’d want to have to do.

I am mostly worried about the not so mentally competent, not so law abiding, untrained, and/or unpermitted gun toting machomen (and women) and the ease with which they can acquire and hold a weapon in this country.

Of course we don’t want to REQUIRE any of the above stipulations that would be bad for the industry….

Have you filled out a permit to obtain a firearm, Eric? They ask all of that and more. And then it’s verified before you can even actually pay for your weapon.

I buy one weapon every six months, yet my check almost always takes three hours to three days to complete, despite the fact that my lack of criminal record , as well as my never having been depressed or diagnosed as mental, is a constant.

Those that are not law abiding don’t get access. It is part of the federal questionnaire/form, and they do the instant check on everyone. Felons cannot legally buy a gun.

Those that are not mentally competent are not legally able to obtain a gun either, and the times were they are, it is because of the conflict of privacy/public right to safety. Much of that problem (at least here in Virginia) has been solved with laws that specify those that are judged legally incompetent must have that information entered into the the check system.

If you think that everyone should have a permit for owning a gun, then you should also think that people should have a permit for speaking. The pen is mightier than the sword, so the Internet is mightier than the rifle as well. If guns should require training and permits, so should your speaking. I don’t think you want that, do you?

The first two, there are already laws on the books, and they work about as well as any drug laws we have, or laws against illegal immigration.